Printer Friendly

[beta]-mannanase and mannan oligosaccharides in broiler chicken feed/[beta]-mananase e mananoligossacarideo em racoes de frangos de corte.

INTRODUCTION

Advances in poultry production in the past few years, mainly in broiler production, are mainly due to the adjustments arising from a series of research studies developed in various segments including genetics, adaptations in facilities, equipment automation, health, and nutrition.

About 80% of the birds' diets are made up of ingredients of plant origin (corn and soy meal), containing non-starch polysaccharides (NSPs) that form the cell wall in plants, where a large portion of this group is present in the hemicellulose fraction. The NSPs have the characteristic of increasing gastrointestinal viscosity, which results in a reduction in the diffusion rate of digestive enzymes and substrates, preventing their interactions on the surface of the intestinal mucosa, leading to impaired digestion and absorption of nutrients. Endogenous enzymes produced by poultry and swine cannot hydrolyze the NSPs contained in cereals (OPALINSKI et al., 2010). In poultry, only the amylase enzyme produced by the pancreas can hydrolyze starch into smaller units that can be absorbed; therefore, the presence of exogenous enzymes is needed (O'NEILL et al., 2014).

The enzyme [beta]-mannanase is responsible for the hydrolysis of [beta]-mannans, thus reducing intestinal viscosity, promoting better nutrient digestibility, and acting on pathogens after hydrolysis. However, since the exact effect of the enzyme interaction is unknown, and there is a difficulty in determining the amount of NSPs present in foods, the results may often be controversial (ALBINO et al., 2006).

Mannan oligosaccharides (MOS) derived from the yeast cell wall have high binding affinity, providing a competitive binding site for oligosaccharide-specific bacteria. The benefits of MOS are based on properties that include changes in the intestinal flora, a reduction in mucosa turnover rate, and the modulation of the immune system in the intestinal lumen (SIMS et al., 2004). Therefore, this study aimed to evaluate the use of [beta]-mannanase and mannan oligosaccharides (MOS) to replace growth promoters in broiler diets.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

The trial was carried out in the Aviculture Sector of the Center for Agrarian Sciences at the Federal University of Alagoas, in the city of Maceio, Brazil, during the months of August and September 2011. Four hundred one-day-old broiler chicks of the Cobb 500[R] breed were used, selected according to the initial weight of 45 [+ or -] 1g, randomly distributed in a shed with reused sugarcane bagasse bedding, raised according to the breed manual.

The broiler chickens were allocated to a brick shed, with 40 experimental units, built on the east-west axis with a ceiling height of 3.5m and natural ventilation. The climate variables were monitored daily at 9:00 AM and 4:00 PM with maximum-minimum, dry- and wet-bulb thermometers, and a black globe thermometer. The average air temperature over the trial period was 25.4[degrees]C (maximum and minimum temperatures of 23.2 and 27.6[degrees]C, respectively) and 78.0% average relative air humidity. The value of 77.6 found for the black globe temperature and humidity index (BGHI) was calculated according to BUFFINGTON et al. (1981).

Feed and water were provided ad libitum in tubular feeders and hanging fountains throughout the trial. The thermal control of the animals was done with artificial heating in each box until the 14th day with 100-watt incandescent light bulbs. Artificial illumination was provided by 60-watt fluorescent light bulbs in a continuous light regimen.

The isonutritive and isoenergetic experimental diets based on soy meal and corn (Table 1) were formulated according to the nutritional needs of high-performance male broilers indicated by ROSTAGNO et al. (2011). Diets were subdivided into four periods: 1 to 7; 8 to 21; 22 to 33; and 34 to 42 days. The treatments were: T1 Basal diet (Positive Control); T2 - Basal diet without growth promoter (Negative Control); T3 - Basal diet without growth promoter + [beta]-mannanase; T4 - Basal diet without growth promoter + MOS; T5 - Basal diet without growth promoter + [beta]-mannanase + MOS. [beta]-mannanase and MOS were added to the treatments replacing the inert carrier, according to the manufacturers' recommendations, i.e., 0.500kg [ton.sup.-1] [beta]-mannanase in all raising periods and 1.500, 1.000, and 0.500 kg [ton.sup.-1] MOS for the periods of 1 to 21; 22 to 33, and 34 to 42 days of age, respectively.

The trial design was completely randomized with five treatments, eight repetitions, and ten broiler chickens per experimental unit. The statistical analyses of the assessed variables were carried out with the software SAEG version 9.0, and the averages were compared by Duncan's test at a 5% significance level. At the end of each trial period, the broiler chickens, the feeds, and the feed leftovers of each repetition were weighed to evaluate the productive performance of the broilers subjected to different treatments. At the end of the trial period, all broiler chickens were individually weighed and two birds of average weight from each trial unit were identified, individually weighed, slaughtered, plucked, and eviscerated after eight hours of fasting for analysis of the characteristics found in the carcass and cuts. The abdominal fat was composed of the fatty tissue around the cloaca and bursa of Fabricius.

The parameters assessed were: absolute weight at slaughter (g) and relative weight (%) of carcass, prime cuts (breast, thighs, drumsticks, and wings), edible offal (heart, liver, and gizzard), and abdominal fat. After the carcasses were weighed, the relative weight (%) was calculated in relation to the slaughter weight (after eight hours in fasting); the yields of prime cuts, edible offal, and abdominal fat were calculated in relation to the carcass weight.

The economic analysis was carried out as a function of the live weight, feed intake, and feed cost during the treatments employed. The economic analysis is inherent to the production and feed component, since the labor and other farming expenses were the same for all treatments. The value of the live broilers was based on the value earned by the market (USD1.46 [kg.sup.-1]) and the value of the raw materials used for calculating the cost of the feeds was based on the values in effect on September 27th 2011 according to the company Ave Sui Consultoria Tecnica Comercio e Representacoes, Brazil.

In order to obtain the variables used in the economic analysis, the following parameters were considered: gross revenue (GR), which is the amount earned as a function of the live weight versus broiler price; gross margin (GM), which represents the difference between the gross income and the feeding cost; relative gross margin (RGM), which is the quotient between the gross margin of the other treatments in relation to treatment 1 (basal diet); average profitability (AP), which represents the quotient between the gross margin and the feeding cost, indicating the profitability over the investment in feed; and relative profitability index (RPI), which represents the quotient between the average profitability of the various treatments and treatment 1. The value of 100 was assigned to the relative margin and to the relative profitability index of treatment 1.

RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

From the results in table 2, it can be seen that the broilers' feed intake at the phase of 1 to 21 days of age was significantly higher (P < 0.05) for the birds fed with basal feed without growth promoter + MOS (T4) compared to those fed with basal feed. Similar results were obtained by CARAMORI JR et al. (2008) when using antibiotics and MOS-based prebiotics in diets for broilers from 1 to 21 days old. On the other hand, ALBINO et al. (2006), LORENCON et al. (2007) and ROCHA et al. (2010) observed that feed intake of the broiler chickens showed no significant differences when using antibiotics and MOS in diets for broilers.

From 22 to 42 days of age and in the whole period, feed intake was not (P > 0.05) influenced by any treatments. Similarly, SIMS et al. (2004), GODOI et al. (2008) and SOUZA et al. (2008) reported no difference in broilers' feed intake at 42 days of age attributed to the use of MOS or antibiotics. However, ESONU et al. (2004), while studying the inclusion of cellulose enzyme in poultry feed over the period of 28 and 35 days of age, saw an increase in feed intake and decrease in weight gain due to the inclusion of the enzyme. Similarly, OPALINSKI et al. (2010) found higher feed intake of broilers fed with a diet including an enzymatic complex containing [beta]-mannanase.

No significant difference (P > 0.05) was seen for the broilers' weight gain between 1 to 21 days of age among the assessed treatments. Similar results were obtained by ZOU et al. (2006) and OPALINSKI et al. (2010) while feeding broilers with diets with and without [beta]-mannanase over the period of 1 and 21 days of age.

At the phase of 22 to 42 days of age, the broilers that received the treatment with the basal diet without growth promoter + MOS (T4) had a 3.10% significantly (P < 0.05) higher weight gain compared to the broilers that received the treatment with basal diet (2.057kg). The results suggest that the MOS used in the diets had positive effects on the intestinal mucosa and immune system, and reduced colonization by pathogenic bacteria. These results are in agreement with CARAMORI JR et al. (2008), GODOI et al. (2008) and ARRUDA et al. (2013) who reported that MOS can improve productive performance.

Over the whole rearing period, it was also seen that the birds fed with basal diet without growth promoter + MOS (T4) had significantly higher (P < 0.05) weight gain (3.109kg), followed by the treatment containing only [beta]-mannanase (3.073kg). The better performance may be associated with the stimulus to the intestinal mucosa provided by the enzyme, since it reduces intestinal viscosity, allowing for higher nutrient absorption, consequently favoring higher weight gain. These results corroborate those obtained by ZOU et al. (2006) and ALBINO et al. (2006), CARAMORI JR et al. (2008) and GODOI et al. (2008), who tested antibiotics and MOS-based prebiotics in broiler diets and saw an improvement in the broilers' weight gain. On the other hand, ESONU et al. (2004), while assessing diets with and without added cellulase enzyme, did not see an improvement in the birds' final weight or feed conversion ratio.

In the period of 1 to 21 days of age, the broilers fed with basal feed had the best feed conversion ratio (P < 0.05) compared to the others.

Moreover, it was seen that the broilers fed with basal feed without growth promoter + [beta]-mannanase + MOS (T5) had the worst feed conversion ratio index (1.41), likely due to the interaction between [beta]-mannanase and MOS.

From 22 to 42 days of age, the feed conversion ratio was influenced (P < 0.05) by the treatments. It can be seen that the treatments with basal feed without growth promoter (T2) and with basal feed without growth promoter + MOS (T4) had the best feed conversion ratio indices (1.76) compared to the other treatments. In the period of 1 to 42 days of age, the broilers fed with basal feed without growth promoter + [beta]-mannanase + MOS (T5) had the worst feed conversion ratio index (1.70).

Within this context, it can be inferred that the MOS and [beta]-manananase enzyme may play an important role in circumstances where the use of antibiotics is not desired. However, broilers subjected to the [beta]-manananase + MOS interaction can worsen their performance, demonstrating a possible antagonism between substances or changes in villus in the absorptive portion of the chickens' gastrointestinal tract (O'NEILL et al., 2014).

The results of weight at slaughter (kg) and relative weights (%) of the carcass, prime cuts, edible offal, and abdominal fat of broilers at 42 days of age differed significantly (P < 0.05) among treatments, except for the weight of breast and liver (Table 3).

The broilers fed with basal diet without growth promoter + [beta]-mannanase + MOS (T5) had the lowest absolute weight (2.942kg) at slaughter compared to the other birds. This result may be due to the antagonism between [beta]-mannanase and the MOS or to the fact that MOS had positive effects on the intestinal mucosa and immune system, thus reducing the colonization of pathogenic bacteria and causing better productive performance and carcass yield. Similar results were obtained by WALDROUP et al. (2003), who tested MOS-based prebiotics in broiler diets and saw an improvement in the broilers' performance.

The broilers subjected to treatment 3 (basal feed without growth promoter + [beta]-mannanase) had the best carcass yield (89.79%), while those with treatment 2 (basal feed without growth promoter) had the lowest carcass yield (88.70%). These results corroborate those obtained by ALBINO et al. (2006), who tested antibiotics and MOS-based prebiotics in broiler diets and observed better broiler carcass yield.

No significant difference (P > 0.05) was observed among treatments evaluated for breast yield of the broilers. These results were similar to those obtained by SOUZA et al. (2008), who did not find a better breast yield in broiler chickens fed with diets containing MOS and enzymatic complex. On the other hand, ALBINO et al. (2006), assessing the addition of MOS in broilers at 42 days of age, found significant differences in the breast yield of the broilers.

Basal feed without growth promoter + MOS (T4) produced the best yield for drumsticks (13.64%), thighs (11.24%), and wings (8.08%), while treatment 5 (basal feed without growth promoter + [beta]-mannanase + MOS) had the lowest values, of 12.14%, 10.42%, and 7.52% for drumsticks, thighs, and wings, respectively. Similar results were obtained by ALBINO et al. (2006).

The relative weights for heart (0.60%) and gizzard (1.27%) were the highest for the broilers that received basal feed without growth promoter + MOS (T4) and the lowest for those that received basal feed without growth promoter + [beta]-mannanase + MOS (T5).

As for abdominal fat, the lowest index was seen in broilers that received the basal feed, and the highest content was found in broilers who consumed the basal diet without growth promoter + [beta]-mannanase + MOS (T5). These results corroborate those reported by SOUZA et al. (2008), who found an increase in abdominal fat in broiler chickens fed with enzyme complex. Different results were reported by VARGAS JR. et al. (2000), who used two antibiotics and two types of probiotics and prebiotics in their broiler feed mixes and saw no increase in yield for commercial cuts and edible offal.

It is noteworthy that the MOS may improve growth performance and carcass yield of broiler chickens, because it has a positive effect on the intestinal mucosa and the immune system and reduces colonization of pathogenic bacteria (WALDROUP et al., 2003). However, there is a discrepancy in the results from that study, probably originating from the amount used in the feed, ingredients used in the formulation of feed, the sanitary conditions in which the birds are raised and by differences in experimental design, among other factors (OLIVEIRA et al., 2007).

The results of the economic analysis for the different treatments of broilers at 42 days of age can be seen in table 4. It was seen that the treatment containing basal diet without growth promoter + MOS (T4) was superior to the others as regards gross revenue, average revenue, and profitability index of the broilers at 42 days of age, and no reduction in body weight was seen due to the replacement of growth promoters by MOS. However, treatment 5 (basal diet without growth promoter + [beta]-mannanase + MOS), despite making a combination of enzyme and prebiotic available to the birds, did not cause any improvement in performance, being the treatment that had the lowest gross income and, consequently, the worst economic efficiency.

It is clear that the treatment with basal feed without growth promoter (T2) had the best feed economic efficiency. This low feeding cost resulted in an excellent gross margin, relative gross margin, gross revenue, and profitability index, being inferior only to treatment 4 (basal feed without growth promoter + MOS).

The use of prebiotics may be a very attractive alternative since they are more effective, leading to higher profitability, thus meeting the requirements of the most demanding markets that disapprove the use of growth promoters in bird feed. In this respect, it is important to analyze the relative prices of poultry and feed, as well as the fluctuation in the dollar exchange rate so the appropriate replacement can be defined, promoting higher profitability.

The relative gross margin of broilers at 42 days for the treatments containing MOS and [beta]-mannanase were 5.74% and 0.99%, respectively, higher compared to the basal diet. However, the diet containing an association of [beta]-mannanase + MOS produced a 5.45% lower relative gross revenue than the basal diet.

CONCLUSION

It was concluded that [beta]-mannanase and mannan oligosaccharides can replace growth promoters in broiler diets without compromising the productive performance and economic efficiency. However, the association of these products in the diet may cause negative interaction, reducing the performance of broilers.

http://dx.doi.org/ 10.1590/0103-8478cr20131544

Received 11.19.13

Approved 06.03.14

Returned by the author 09.01.14 CR-2013-1544.R2

REFERENCES

ALBINO, L.F.T. et al. Uso de prebioticos a base de mananoligossacarideo em racoes para frangos de corte. Revista Brasileira de Zootecnia, v.35, n.3, p.742-749, 2006. Available from: <http://www.scielo.br/pdf/rbz/v35n3/30064.pdf>. Accessed: nov 12, 2012. doi: 10.1590/S1516-35982006000300015.

ARRUDA, E.M.F. et al. Evaluation of diets with enzyme complex on broiler performance. In: PSA ANNUAL MEETING, 2013, San Diego, California, USA. Proceedings ... Champaign, IL: Poultry Science Association, 2013. v.92, suppl.1. p.114.

BUFFINGTON, D.E. et al. Black globe humidity index (BGHI) as comfort equation for dairy cows. Transactions of the SAE, v.24, p.711-714, 1981.

CARAMORI JR., J.G. Efeito de simbiotico na racao inicial de frangos de corte sobre o desempenho, qualidade de carcaca e carne. Acta Scientiarum Animal Sciences, v.30, n.1, p.17-23, 2008. Available from: <http://periodicos.uem.br/ojs/index.php/ ActaSciAnimSci/article/view/3595>. Accessed: jan 19, 2013. doi: 10.4025/actascianimsci.v30i1.3595.

ESONU, B.O. et al. Effect of enzyme supplementation on the performance of broiler finisher fed Microdesmis puberula leaf meal. International Journal of Poultry Science, v.3, n.2 p. 112-114, 2004. Available from: <http://www.pjbs.org/ijps/fin132.pdf>. Accessed: nov 12, 2012. doi: 10.3923/ijps.2004.112.114.

GODOI, M.J.S. et al. Utilizacao de aditivos em racoes formuladas com milho normal e de baixa qualidade para frangos de corte. Revista Brasileira de Zootecnia, v.37, n.6, p.1005-1011, 2008. Available from: <http://www.scielo.br/pdf/rbz/v37n6/ v37n6a08.pdf>. Accessed: nov 12, 2012. doi: 10.1590/S151635982008000600008.

LORENCON, L. et al. Utilizacao de promotores de crescimento para frangos de corte em racoes fareladas e peletizadas. Acta Scientiarum Animal Sciences, v.29, n.2, p.151-158, 2007. Available from: <http:// periodicos.uem.br/ojs/index.php/ActaSciAnimSci/article/view/219>. Accessed: jan 19, 2013. doi: 10.4025/actascianimsci.v29i2.219.

OLIVEIRA, M.C. et al. Utilizacao de nutrientes de dietas contendo mananoligossacarideo e/ou complexo enzimatico para frangos de corte. Revista Brasileira de Zootecnia, v.36, n.4, p.825-831, 2007. Available from: <http://www.scielo.br/pdf/rbz/ v36n4/11.pdf>. Accessed: nov 12, 2012. doi: 10.1590/S151635982007000400011.

O'NEILL, H.V.M. et al. Multicarbohydrase enzymes for nonruminants. Asian-Australasian Journal of Animal Science, v.27, n.2, p.290-301, 2014. Available from: <http://www.ajas.info/ upload/pdf/ajas-27-2-290-17.pdf>. Accessed: feb 20, 2014. doi: 10.5713/ajas.2013.13261.

OPALINSKI, M. et al. Adicao de complexo enzimatico e da granulometria da soja integral desativada melhora desempenho de frangos de corte. Ciencia Rural, v.40, n.3, p.628-632, 2010. Available from: <http://www.scielo.br/pdf/cr/v40n3/ a476cr962.pdf>. Accessed: feb 15, 2013. doi: 10.1590/S010384782010005000017.

ROCHA, A.P. et al. Prebioticos, acidos orgAnicos e probioticos em racoes para frangos de corte. Revista Brasileira de Saude e Producao Animal, v.11, n.3, p.793-801, 2010.

ROSTAGNO, H.S. et al. Tabelas brasileiras para aves e suinos Composicao de alimentos e exigencias nutricionais. 3.ed. Vicosa, MG: Editora UFV, 2011. 252p.

SIMS, M.D. et al. Effects of dietary mannan oligosaccharide, bacitracin methylene disalicylate, or both on the live performance and intestinal microbiology of turkeys. Poultry Science, v.83, n.7, p. 1148-1154, 2004. Available from: <http://ps.oxfordjournals.org/ content/83/7/1148.full.pdf+html>. Accessed: feb 15, 2013. doi: 10.1093/ps/83.7.1148.

SOUZA, R.M. et al. Efeitos da suplementacao enzimatica e da forma fisica da racao sobre o desempenho e as caracteristicas de carcaca de frangos de corte. Ciencia e Agrotecnologia, Lavras, v.32, n.2, p. 584-590, 2008. Available from: <http://www.scielo. br/pdf/cagro/v32n2/37.pdf>. Accessed: feb 15, 2013. doi: 10.1590/ S1413-70542008000200037.

VARGAS JR. et al. Uso de probioticos e prebioticos em racoes de frangos de corte. Revista Brasileira de Ciencia Avicola, Supl.2, p.31, 2000.

WALDROUP, P.W. et al. Utilization of Bio-Mos[R] mannan oligosaccharide and Bioplex[R] copper in broiler diets. International Journal of Poultry Science, v.2, n.1, p.44-52, 2003. Available from: <http://www.pjbs.org/ijps/fin52.pdf>. Accessed: feb 15, 2013. doi: 10.3923/ijps.2003.44.52.

ZOU, X.T. et al. Effect of p-mannanase (Hemicell) on growth performance and immunity of broilers. Poultry Science, v. 85, n. 12, p.2176-2179. 2006. Available from: <http://ps.oxfordjournals.org/ content/85/12/2176.full.pdf+html>. Accessed: feb 15, 2013. doi: 10.1093/ps/85.12.2176.

Victor Ramos Sales Mendes de Barros (I) Geraldo Roberto Quintao Lana (I) * Sandra Roseli Valerio LanaI Angela Maria Quintao Lana (II) Fabio Sales Albuquerque Cunha (III) Joao Virginio Emerenciano Neto (II)

(I) Programa de Pos-graduacao em Zootecnia, Universidade Federal de Alagoas (UFAL), Campus Delza Gitai, 57100-000, Rio Largo, AL, Brasil. E-mail: glana@bol.com.br. * Corresponding author.

(II) Programa de Pos-graduacao em Zootecnia, Universidade Federal de Minas Gerais (UFMG), Belo Horizonte, MG, Brasil.

(III) Universidade Estadual de Alagoas (UNEAL), Santana do Ipanema, AL, Brasil.
Table 1--Composition of basal diets used in the trial periods.

                                        Periods
Ingredients (%)
                          1 to 7   8 to 21   22 to 33   34 to 42

Corn seed                 55.509   57.139    59.107     63.094
Soy meal 46               24.896   18.261    10.446     7.007
Extruded soybean          14.479   19.97     26.231     26.098
Dicalcium phosphate       1.7      1.3       1.1        0.8
Limestone 38%             1.3      1.4       1.3        1.2
Salt (NaCl)               0.53     0.52      0.49       0.49
Premix (vitamin and       0.1      0.1       0.1        0.1
  mineral) (1)
DLMethionine 99%          0.373    0.322     0.306      0.286
Lysine HCl 78.8%          0.533    0.428     0.354      0.348
Threonine 98%             0.08     0.06      0.066      0.077
Coccidiostat (2)          0.04     0.04      0.03       0.03
Growth promoter (3)       0.02     0.02      0.02       0.02
Inert carrier             0.44     0.44      0.45       0.45
Total                     100      100       100        100

Nutrients                       Calculated composition

Metabolizable             2.96     3.05      3.15       3.2
  energy (kcal)
Crude protein %           22.4     21.2      19.8       18.4
Digestible lysine %       1.324    1.217     1.131      1.06
Digestible methionine %   0.516    0.475     0.452      0.424
Digestible threonine %    0.861    0.791     0.735      0.689
Digestible tryptophan %   0.25     0.24      0.22       0.2
Calcium %                 0.92     0.841     0.758      0.663
Available phosphorous %   0.47     0.401     0.354      0.309
Sodium %                  0.22     0.21      0.2        0.19

(1) premix [kg.sup.-1]: Vit. A 13,440,000UI; Vit. D 3,200,000UI; Vit.
E 28,000mg [kg.sup.-1]; Vit. K 2,880mg [kg.sup.-1]; Thiamine 3,500mg
[kg.sup.-1]; Riboflavin 9,600mg [kg.sup.-1]; Pyridoxine 5,000mg
[kg.sup.-1]; Cyanocobalamin 19,200mcg [kg.sup.-1]; Folic acid 1,600mg
[kg.sup.-1]; Pantothenic acid 25,000mg [kg.sup.-1]; Niacin 67,200mg
[kg.sup.-1]; Biotin 80,000mcg [kg.sup.-1]; Selenium 600ppm;
Antioxidant 0.40g [kg.sup.-1]; 40mg NTAN [L.sup.-1]; Mg 150,000ppm;
Zn 140,000ppm; Fe 100,000ppm; Cu 16,000ppm; IodoI 1,500ppm.

(2) Coccidiostat: from 1 to 21 days, Nicarbazin 25%; from 22 to 42
days, Monenzin 20%.

(3) Growth promoter: Bacitracin (100g [ton.sup.-1]) and Colistin
sulfate (100g [ton.sup.-1]).

Table 2--Effect of [beta]-mannanase and mannan oligosaccharides on
feed intake (FI), weight gain (WG), and feed conversion ratio (FCR)
of male broilers from 1 to 42 days of age.

                                    Treatments (1)

Variables      Periods    Positive   Negative    [beta]-
                (days)    Control    Control    mannanase
                            (T1)       (T2)       (T5)

FI (kg)        1 to 21 *  1.295 b    1.349 a    1.346 a
               22 to 42   3.779 a    3.667 a    3.771 a
               1 to 42    5.073 a    5.016 a    5.118 a

WG (kg)        1 to 21    0.967 a    0.984 a    0.977 a
               22 to 42 * 2.057 ab   2.079 a    2.096 a
               1 to 42 *  3.023 ab   3.063 ab   3.073 ab

FCR (kg        1 to 21 *  1.34 b     1.37 ab    1.37 ab
[kg.sup.-1])   22 to 42 * 1.84 a     1.76 b     1.80 ab
               1 to 42 *  1.67 b     1.63 b     1.66 b

                                Treatments (1)

Variables      Periods    MOS (T4)     [beta]-     CV
                (days)               mannanase +   (%)
                                      MOS (T5)

FI (kg)        1 to 21 *  1.355 a    1.335 ab      2.7
               22 to 42   3.728 a    3.671 a       4.1
               1 to 42    5.083 a    5.006 a       3

WG (kg)        1 to 21    0.987 a    0.945 a       4.2
               22 to 42 * 2.123 a    1.999 b       5.4
               1 to 42 *  3.109 a    2.944 b       3.7

FCR (kg        1 to 21 *  1.37 ab    1.41 a        4.1
[kg.sup.-1])   22 to 42 * 1.76 b     1.84 a        4.6
               1 to 42 *  1.63 b     1.70 a        3.2

(1) T1--basal feed (Positive Control); T2--basal feed without growth
promoter (Negative Control); T3--basal feed without growth promoter
[beta]-mannanase; T4--basal feed without growth promoter + MOS; T5--
basal feed without growth promoter + [beta]-mannanase + MOS.

* Significant (P < 0.05), by F test.

Averages followed by different letters in the same line differ
according to Duncan's test (P < 0.05).

Table 3--Effect of [beta]-mannanase and mannan oligosaccharides on
values of slaughter weight and relative weight of carcass, prime
cuts, edible offal, and abdominal fat of broilers at 42 days of age.

Variables                         Treatments (1)

                    Positive       Negative     [beta]-mannanase
                  Control (T1)   Control (T2)         (T3)

Slaughter           3.019 ab       3.032 ab       3.048 ab
  weight * (kg)
Carcass * (%)       88.89 ab       88.70 b        89.79 a
Breast (ns) (%)     34.09 a        34.08 a        33.99 a
Drumstick * (%)     13.14 ab       12.75 bc       13.21 ab
Thigh * (%)         10.53 b        10.48 b        10.79 ab
Wing * (%)          7.91 ab        7.66 ab        7.99 a
Liver (ns) (%)      1.59 a         1.49 a         1.65 a
Heart * (%)         0.55 ab        0.55 ab        0.56 ab
Gizzard* (%)        1.20 ab        1.13 b         1.25 a
Abdominal           0.71 b         0.97 a         0.91 a
  fat * (%)

Variables                  Treatments (1)

                   MOS      [beta]-mannanase   CV (%)
                   (T4)        + MOS (T5)

Slaughter         3.130 a    2.942 b            3.64
  weight * (kg)
Carcass * (%)     89.38 ab   89.07 ab           1.02
Breast (ns) (%)   33.69 a    34.13 a            3.74
Drumstick * (%)   13.64 a    12.14 c            5.42
Thigh * (%)       11.24 a    10.42 b            4.88
Wing * (%)        8.04 a     7.52 b             4.8
Liver (ns) (%)    1.61 a     1.55 a             10.25
Heart * (%)       0.60 a     0.52 b             11.03
Gizzard* (%)      1.27 a     1.19 ab            8,02
Abdominal         0.91 a     0.96 a             17.46
  fat * (%)

(1) T1--basal feed (Positive Control); T2--basal feed without growth
promoter (Negative Control); T3--basal feed without growth promoter +
[beta]-mannanase; T4--basal feed without growth promoter + MOS; T5--
basal feed without growth promoter + [beta]-mannanase + MOS.

* Significant (P < 0.05), by F test.

Averages followed by different letters in the same line differ
significantly according to Duncan's test (P<0.05).

Table 4--Effect of [beta]-mannanase and mannan oligosaccharides on
the economic traits of broilers at 42 days of age.

Treatment   [LW.sup.2]   [FI.sup.2]   [FP.sup.2]   [FC.sup.2]
(1)            (kg)         (kg)        (USD)      (USD/bird)

1             3.064        5.073        0.466        2.364
2             3.104        5.016        0.466        2.337
3             3.114        5.118        0.472        2.416
4              3.15        5.083        0.466        2.369
5             2.984        5.006        0.472        2.363

Treatment    [GR.sup.2,3]     [GM.sup.2,3]    [RGM.sup.2,3]
(1)              (USD             (USD             (%)
            [bird.sup.-1])   [bird.sup.-1])

1               4.473            2.109           100.00
2               4.531            2.194           104.03
3               4.546             2.13           100.99
4               4.599             2.23           105.74
5               4.357            1.994            94.55

Treatment   [AP.sup.2,3]   [RPI.sup.2,3]
(1)             (%)             (%)

1              89.21          100.00
2              93.88          105.23
3              88.16           98.82
4              94.13          105.52
5              84.38           94.59

(1) T1--basal feed; T2--basal feed without growth promoter; T3--
basal feed without growth promoter + [beta]-mannanase; T4--basal feed
without growth promoter + MOS; T5--basal feed without growth promoter
+ [beta]-mannanase + MOS.

(2) LW--live weight; FI--feed intake; FP--feed cost; FC--feeding
cost; GR--gross revenue; GM--gross margin; RGM--relative gross
margin; AP--average profitability; RPI--relative profitability index.

(3) Price of the poultry on September 27th 2011: USD 1.46 [kg.sup.-1].
COPYRIGHT 2015 Universidade Federal de Santa Maria
No portion of this article can be reproduced without the express written permission from the copyright holder.
Copyright 2015 Gale, Cengage Learning. All rights reserved.

Article Details
Printer friendly Cite/link Email Feedback
Title Annotation:produccion animal; texto en ingles
Author:de Barros, Victor Ramos Sales Mendes; Lana, Geraldo Roberto Quintao; Lana, Sandra Roseli Valerio; La
Publication:Ciencia Rural
Date:Jan 1, 2015
Words:4985
Previous Article:Persistence of insecticides and microbiological attributes in a soil under different management systems/Persistencia de inseticidas e parametros...
Next Article:Fermentative and chemical characteristics of sugarcane silages with "taboa"/Caracteristicas fermentativas e bromatologicas de silagens de...
Topics:

Terms of use | Privacy policy | Copyright © 2019 Farlex, Inc. | Feedback | For webmasters